Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z Minutes 12-16-82 page 4 made, and although he is not against this type of rezoning, he would 1 ike to see some consistencies set, other than "this developer would make a good project". Mr. Mayo pointed out that sometimes there is trouble with interpretation of a Comprehen- sive Plan, in that hard 1 ines are hard to follow and it is not necessary to follow pro- perty lines when making land use recommendations. He further said this request would fal I within the guidel ines, and referred to development pol icy in the Plan. He said the land use guides had not necessarily followed property I ines, and Mr. Miller then said that Mr. Mayo had said none of this in August, but had spoken of existing available commercial property. Mr. Hall said a subcommittee he had sat on had been determined to create a hard-core residential area and to discourage commercial development in this area. He said that commercial development had already been allowed on the east end of the area, and now the west end is under question, and wondered why changes had occurred from the recom- mendations of the subcommittee meetings. Mr. Mayo said the aim is to maintain a core area of low density residential and basically the only real difference is to take this area between the creeks and make it A-P rather than low density residential, and A-P is considered a buffer zone, and the creeks make a natural boundary with A-P as a buffer. Mr. Hall asked if Mr. Mayo would feel this is consistent with the subcommittee findings to which Mr. Mayo repl ied that it is, basically. Mr. Hall pointed out there was even one plan to develop a larger mobile home development. Mr. Mayo agreed that this is one of the few areas for a potential mobile home park, but it's one thing for the City to say this, and another for someone to do it. Mr. Hall said the rest of the R-l area will become prime R-3 now and Mr. Fleming said there is a natural break with the creek cutting through Mr. Hill asked if A-P zoning was a problem, and could Mr. Hall separate A-P and C-l. Mr. Hall said he is not against this request, but he wanted the reasons for recommending the request to be discussed, just as Mr. Mayo had done. He said it is a good idea for the commercial development to stay just as close to Texas Avenue as possible, and would pre- fer the commercial tracts to stay smaller than is proposed, but agrees to the plan to have commercial areas at large, major intersections. Mr. Kelly made a motion to recommend approval of the request to rezone 8 acres to C-l and the remainder (8.168 acres) to A-P, subject to the submission and approval of a Final Plat. Mr. Hill seconded. Mr. Fleming said this was being approved under the assumption that there would be one owner, and what is the worst that could happen? He asked if both developed individually, could we hold them to the agreement? Mr. Mayo pointed out the case of the restaurant on Brentwood having different ownerships and they could not be required to allow rear access, and the only way to hold the 4 lots to the agreement, or these lots being considered tonight is by platted legal means which control curb cuts and signage. Mr. Behl ing said the worst that could happen would be that the separate owne would not work together, but City pol itics would required them to, through legal means. Motion carried 6-1 with Mr. Miller voting against. . AGENDA ITEM NO.6: 82-246: Final Plat - Glenhaven Estates I Mr. Mayo explained and stated staff recommends approval with the Presubmission Conference recommendations. Mr. Kelly pointed out that this had been Phas~ I I I when presented as a Prel iminary Plat. Mr. Mayo said the developer could present a Final Plat in any order. Mr. Kelly also pointed out that the question concerning Glenhaven Drive was answered in the previous minutes and expressed a wish that Frances would be "signed" concerning truck access. Mr. Kelly made a motion to approve the plat with Mr. Bailey seconding, pointing out that access from Glenhaven to Lot 1 was also to be denied and so indicated by a note on the plat. Motion to approve carried unanimously.